Jerry, stop while you are ahead. If you'd use your whole brain and not your power ego you'd see the articles came from a PRO-GUN source. So, take a breath, let it out, count to 10 and read the darn things. If you have something to contribute, well, add it. If you just want to shut down discussion, do so, I can't stop you.

No, you'd better stop while you're ahead. If you used "half" your brain you'd have comprehend my meaning. Its evident I've gaven you too much credit so I'll spell it out for you. If you're trolling you're going to get your but kicked by those in the know.... AGAIN! Now continue with the insults and this thread will be closed quicker than you can say dictatorial rule. Got it?

__________________
JerryBIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

A knowledge of English syntax and vocabulary — and nothing else — should be sufficient to determine that the amendment protects an individualist right to firearms.

Approaching the sentence as grammarians, we immediately note two things: the simple subject is "right" and the full predicate is "shall not be infringed." This, in other words, is a sentence about a right that is already assumed to exist. It does not say, "The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms." The amendment recognizes , but does not grant, the right. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in the late 19th century, the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Constitution.